|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
India-Pakistan: Rivals Must Not Cross Nuclear Thresholds, Analyst Says By Kerry Boyd “We really are at the 11th hour,” Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Center told reporters yesterday, after returning from India and Kashmir last week. “Time is running out … we’re in a very deep crisis.” The situation intensified today as Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee told Indian troops in Kashmir to prepare to fight, according to wire reports. “It’s now time for a decisive fight,” Vajpayee said. “Let no one think that we’ll keep raising the limit of our tolerance.” Concerns grew last week when gunmen killed more than 30 people on the Indian side of the line of control in the disputed Kashmir territory. India yesterday refused to pull its troops back from the border with Pakistan, where the two countries have massed 1 million soldiers, according to Agence France-Presse. Also yesterday, gunmen killed a leader of a Muslim separatist group in Kashmir who had opposed violence, the Associated Press reported. No group has claimed responsibility. Abdul Kader Jaffer, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, said yesterday that the two countries are “very close” to war. Indian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao said, “things have reached a pass where India’s sovereign interests have to be defended,” according to the AP. Ripe for War Krepon told reporters that South Asia has experienced an increase in the number of crises since India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998. Each crisis has ended unsatisfactorily for one or both sides, setting the stage for the next, including the current situation, he said. In recent months India set conditions that Pakistan must meet to avoid conflict, and Pakistan has not met those conditions, Krepon said. In particular, India has called for Pakistan to prevent pro-separation militants from crossing the line of control into Indian-controlled territory. India blames Pakistan for supporting the militants and helping them cross the line, and Pakistan has said it is not responsible. India “has had it” with Pakistan and the continuing infiltration of militants, such as the gunmen in last week’s attack, Krepon said, citing conversations he had with Indian leaders. Violence across the line of control will in the future “be a two-way street,” he said. If the two countries fight a conventional war, the conflict will not follow past trends, Krepon predicted. “If a war happens, it’s going to be a different kind of war than previous wars,” he said. India will not wait for Pakistan to “deliver the first blow,” he said. If the two rivals go to war, India will no longer respect the line of control and will seek to destroy the “infrastructure” of terrorism — such as militants’ camps and training grounds — on the Pakistani side of the line, Krepon said. India probably would also strike against those who assist terrorism, he said. India has repeatedly stated that it holds the Pakistani government responsible for ending infiltration. Nuclear “Red Lines” If India and Pakistan go to war, much will depend on India’s war aims and the country’s ability to balance its goal of punishing Pakistan for supporting militants without escalating beyond nuclear thresholds, Krepon said (see GSN, Feb. 19). He said that most Indian leaders told him they are confident they know the thresholds — the “red lines” — that might trigger nuclear war. When he asked what those red lines were, however, each leader had a different response, he said. For example, every leader said that attacking a Pakistani city would be crossing a red line, but there was disagreement over whether surrounding a city but not attacking it would lead to a nuclear response. Seizing and holding territory Pakistan highly values could lead to nuclear conflict — depending on where and how deep Indian operations would be, the Indian officials said. There would be many unpredictable elements in a South Asian war, Krepon said, adding that most analysts believe nuclear weapons would be on an increased level of readiness. According the Pakistani newspaper the Nation, Pakistan has recently installed 750-kilometer range Shaheen missiles in certain areas and told world leaders that it reserves the right to use all options to protect its territory (see GSN, May 21). Fighting a conventional war is possible, but both rivals must be on the same “wavelength” concerning escalation, Krepon said (see GSN, May 15). Neither India nor Pakistan, however, would control the dynamics of the situation or have full command over escalation, said Brig. Gen. Feroz Khan, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs Division of the Pakistani Joint Services Headquarters. The situation is dangerous, he said. India cannot guarantee that Pakistan would accept certain setbacks without feeling impelled to escalate the conflict, George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told Global Security Newswire earlier this year. U.S. Involvement Even if a Pakistani-Indian war avoided nuclear conflict, it would have other negative consequences, Krepon said. For example, Pakistani or Indian leadership might change, and the war would probably affect the “extremely fluid” situation in Kashmir, Krepon said. A war would hurt U.S. operations in Afghanistan, Khan said, adding that Indian actions — potentially opening another front for Pakistan — could harm Pakistan’s ability to assist the U.S. war on terrorism. The United States must therefore increase its efforts to de-escalate South Asian tensions and prevent a war, Krepon said. The United States must initiate “very concentrated, very high-level,” face-to-face meetings, Krepon said. The United States is in a unique position and, with very active involvement, could “jumpstart” a de-escalation process, Khan said (see GSN, March 18). Many U.S. officials have expressed concern about the situation. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “We should be worried” and spoke to Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf Friday, the New York Times reported. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca recently visited the region and was there during the recent attack in Kashmir. State spokesman Richard Boucher, who said Monday that the United States is “strongly concerned,” called on the two countries to resolve their disputes through dialogue. The United States remains “deeply engaged with Indian and Pakistani leaders,” he said. “We’ve had regular, high-level visits and visitors with people from these two countries,” he said, adding that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage plans to visit India and Pakistan. The State Department has not released the dates of Armitage’s trip, but the South Asian media has reported that he will arrive the first week in June. Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is scheduled to go to the region next week, according to the London Times. “This is a crisis the world cannot ignore,” he said. Is It Enough? Making phone calls and sending assistant secretaries of state, however, are insufficient responses, Krepon said. To avoid war, the United States must send top officials to the region to make strong efforts to calm the situation. Krepon also said Pakistan could remove the militant camps and training grounds on Pakistani territory as a way to prevent war, since militant infiltration is the No. 1 issue that India cites as a threat to its security. If a war occurs, the United States should first focus on controlling escalation, Krepon said. The United States would also have to protect U.S. forces in the region and develop initiatives to prevent another war and end the cycle of crisis in South Asia, he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
